Subscribers kicking newspaper habit

It’s been said you can’t cut your way to prosperity, but The New York Times is gonna try.

The Times is expanding while at the same time cutting newsroom jobs, launching regional editions in San Francisco and Chicago, using nonprofit organizations as bureaus.

The idea is to reach new audiences, using local journalists to report the news.

It might work.

But it’s probably too little, too late.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations released its six-month report on Monday, showing that, on average, U.S. daily newspaper subscriptions from April to September were down 10.6 percent from the same timeframe in 2008.

That figure includes some mammoth drops for big-time papers, including minus-17.2 percent for USA Today, minus-18.5 percent for The Boston Globe and minus-22.2 percent for The Dallas Morning News.

But these staggering statistics don’t mean that people aren’t reading and aren’t receiving news. On the contrary, the National Endowment for the Arts released a study in January that showed reading is actually on the rise among Americans. So, the problem isn’t that people aren’t reading; it’s that people aren’t reading newspapers.

Newspapers were too slow to jump on the online bandwagon, but now that they have, it’s clear that everything about newspapers has transitioned well to the Web. In fact, many things about newspapers have been improved by the transition…except one: revenue.

In an effort to remain relevant as the Information Age dawned, most major U.S. newspapers started putting their content online after the print edition had been delivered, and offering it for free.

Then, in an effort to remain relevant as news Web sites popped up and began publishing stories by the minute, many newspapers started putting their content online as quickly as they could — rather than waiting until the paper had actually been delivered — still offering it for free.

So, what’s a reader to do? Wait until the next day to learn the news, and pay for it to be plopped down on the doorstep? Or get it online, while it’s happening, for nothing?

The New York Times’ Web site averages 21.5 million unique visitors per month — “unique visitors” being those who hit the site more than once during the month. The Washington Post claims 9.2 million a month. Yet both papers saw declines in print subscriptions in the ABC report, the Times at minus-7.3 percent and the Post at minus-6.4 percent.

So, clearly the issue isn’t that readers don’t see value in newspaper content…they just don’t want to pay for it. And they certainly don’t want to wait until the next day for it.

Some papers are trying to convert their Web sites to paid subscription services. And Newsday announced last week that it’ll join the movement and begin charging for its online content, starting today.

But how can major newspapers expect readers to pay for online content now after they’ve gotten it for free all this time? Unless every newspaper in America were to jump on board and begin charging online subscription rates at the same time, it just won’t work at this point, not with so much content available for free all over the Web.

If papers can come up with a model for providing online content that is truly unique, an online subscription service could eventually thrive. But the content would have to be the kind of thing readers felt they just couldn’t live without…you know, like internet service and cable television.

Revenue from online advertising has been slow, at best, for newspapers, especially with the recession keeping business budgets tight. Some think an upturn in the economy will rectify that, and it might.

In the meantime, newspapers are in a dangerous cycle, with decreased advertising revenue leading to layoffs, which are leading to inferior products, which aren’t doing anything to entice readers to reverse the current subscription trend.

So what will reverse the trend?

Maybe nothing. But if anything’s going to do it, it’ll have to be creative, outside-the-box thinking like the New York Times is showing by partnering with nonprofit groups to create regional editions.

It’s a grim outlook, though; outside-the-box thinking has not exactly been the mark of the newspaper industry. In fact, it was the distinct lack of such thinking, across the industry, that helped create the current condition.

Now, only time will tell if newspapers can pick themselves up, dust themselves off and plop themselves back on people’s doorsteps.

12 Comments

gayle11
on October 28, 2009 at 12:11 pm

Maybe I'm old fashioned or just slow to the change but I still like having something to hold in my hand, turn the pages and read, as well as having the opportunity to go on line and read news. Another issue for me is, I'm still a little challenged some times (many times) when it comes to surfing the web and finding my way around to the exact thing I want and I guess I just like having it both ways. Bottom line is, I like my cake and I want to eat it too~ or something like that 🙂

Anonymous
on October 28, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Maybe I’m old fashioned or just slow to the change but I still like having something to hold in my hand, turn the pages and read, as well as having the opportunity to go on line and read news. Another issue for me is, I’m still a little challenged some times (many times) when it comes to surfing the web and finding my way around to the exact thing I want and I guess I just like having it both ways. Bottom line is, I like my cake and I want to eat it too~ or something like that 🙂

Anonymous
on October 28, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Maybe I’m old fashioned or just slow to the change but I still like having something to hold in my hand, turn the pages and read, as well as having the opportunity to go on line and read news. Another issue for me is, I’m still a little challenged some times (many times) when it comes to surfing the web and finding my way around to the exact thing I want and I guess I just like having it both ways. Bottom line is, I like my cake and I want to eat it too~ or something like that 🙂

Adam Sparks
on October 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Maybe you could buy an extra subscription or three to help make up for that 10% decrease? Unfortunately, it won't surprise me at all if subscription services drop another 10% next year.

As for the surfing issue, you're not alone; I think easier-to-navigate Web sites will have to be a must of the future online newspaper model. Right now, there's so much clutter, it's hard to figure out what's what sometimes.

gayle11
on October 28, 2009 at 2:32 pm

If I could, I would honestly do that to help the cause and if I ever can, I will! The drop really is a very sad thought though, isn't it?

Adam Sparks
on October 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm

Maybe you could buy an extra subscription or three to help make up for that 10% decrease? Unfortunately, it won’t surprise me at all if subscription services drop another 10% next year.

As for the surfing issue, you’re not alone; I think easier-to-navigate Web sites will have to be a must of the future online newspaper model. Right now, there’s so much clutter, it’s hard to figure out what’s what sometimes.

Anonymous
on October 28, 2009 at 9:32 pm

If I could, I would honestly do that to help the cause and if I ever can, I will! The drop really is a very sad thought though, isn’t it?

Adam Sparks
on October 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm

Maybe you could buy an extra subscription or three to help make up for that 10% decrease? Unfortunately, it won’t surprise me at all if subscription services drop another 10% next year.

As for the surfing issue, you’re not alone; I think easier-to-navigate Web sites will have to be a must of the future online newspaper model. Right now, there’s so much clutter, it’s hard to figure out what’s what sometimes.

Adam, while it may be too little too late, I really do think the New York Times is onto something.

One thing we've discussed in person is just how inefficient the newspaper model is. You have a staff of 200+ doing the EXACT same job in nearly every city in this country. The scoreboard page is nearly identical in every newspaper, the national news is all the same, the stock market coverage the same… The only thing really different in one paper from the next is the handful of local content.

It was only a matter of time until one of the big guys figured it out. I always thought it made sense with USA Today, but The Times is just as strong a brand. Produce a national product, and have a bureau in each city you reach to produce a small local section.

I'll be interested to see how the San Francisco and Chicago versions do.

I think print news will exist in one form or another for awhile… maybe not our entire lifetimes, but I'd say a majority of them. There is still a market for holding the paper in your hand, as ever shrinking as it may be.

plueck
on October 29, 2009 at 6:33 pm

ESPN is doing the same thing with sports coverage (they have zoned pages set up in Dallas, Boston and Chicago). I think they've pretty well cheaped out on them, mostly using wire content and the like, but if it ever gets going for real, I could see it giving the Tribune and Sun-Times a run for their money.

Actually, they've been pretty clever about where they've built their zoned pages. The papers in those three cities are in big trouble, all of them.

I think there could be a viable business model for a company that can make money online and still pay reporters a living wage. I mean, after all, you're subtracting the cost of printing the paper, buying the paper and maintaining a press (all hugely costly), as well as most of the cost of a circulation department. It'd be a smaller organization, but I would like to think it could be done. Right now, it seems like the major online news model is the Huffington Post model, where you get paid nothing or next to nothing and use your writing to build a resume or sell your latest book — not so great if you're trying to, you know, make a living.

Anonymous
on October 30, 2009 at 1:33 am

ESPN is doing the same thing with sports coverage (they have zoned pages set up in Dallas, Boston and Chicago). I think they’ve pretty well cheaped out on them, mostly using wire content and the like, but if it ever gets going for real, I could see it giving the Tribune and Sun-Times a run for their money.

Actually, they’ve been pretty clever about where they’ve built their zoned pages. The papers in those three cities are in big trouble, all of them.

I think there could be a viable business model for a company that can make money online and still pay reporters a living wage. I mean, after all, you’re subtracting the cost of printing the paper, buying the paper and maintaining a press (all hugely costly), as well as most of the cost of a circulation department. It’d be a smaller organization, but I would like to think it could be done. Right now, it seems like the major online news model is the Huffington Post model, where you get paid nothing or next to nothing and use your writing to build a resume or sell your latest book — not so great if you’re trying to, you know, make a living.